The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Los Angeles woman who was sexually assaulted in a parking garage cannot sue the garage's owner for damages, sharply limiting lawsuits against properties hit by random crime.

The ruling was a victory for property owners who feared that the court might open the door for a range of lawsuits when crimes are committed in subways, building hallways, Laundromats, movie theaters or college dormitories.

An appellate court ruled earlier this year in favor of the assault victim, finding that commercial underground parking structures are "inherently dangerous" and therefore owners must take extra measures like providing enhanced lighting, security cameras or guards to protect against "foreseeable" crimes.

In a 6-to-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court reversed the lower court yesterday, finding that there was nothing particularly dangerous about parking garages that would automatically permit such suits.

"Were we to find that the occurrence of violent crime in commercial underground parking structures is highly foreseeable as a matter of law, we would be opening the door to virtually limitless litigation over what other types of property could also be characterized as 'inherently dangerous,' " wrote Justice Marvin Baxter for the court majority.

The court's ruling leaves intact earlier decisions that allow victims to sue owners who are on notice that their properties pose "foreseeable" dangers. A property would pose such a danger, for example, if crimes had been committed there or if criminals were known to frequent it.

But to force owners to provide extra security where there have been no prior criminal incidents would be unduly burdensome, the court said, and would contravene "settled state policy that . . . landlords should not be forced to become insurers of public safety."

Stephen McCutcheon, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented property owners in the case, said that the court made a clear distinction between "foreseeable" criminal activity based on prior criminal incidents and random crime, which no one can foresee.

He said that if the court had ruled the other way it, would have set a "dangerous precedent" for businesses besides parking garages. To provide the extra security, McCutcheon said, "owners would have to raise prices to stay profitable or pick up and move. And the last thing we want is for businesses to flee high-crime areas."

The case arose after a woman, identified only as Sharon P., was sexually assaulted in 1993 as she was leaving her car in the underground parking lot adjoining the Los Angeles office building where she had an accounting business.

She sued the building owner, Arman Ltd., and the parking garage operator, Apcoa Inc., for damages, claiming that underground parking structures are "inherently dangerous" and carry higher likelihood of violent criminal attacks.

The owners should have known that the attack might occur, she argued, and were legally obligated to provide more than just minimal security.

She pointed out that the security camera in the garage was out of order and several lights were out, leaving darkened areas where someone could lie in wait. Also, a bank adjoining the lot had been robbed seven times in the two years prior to her assault.

But the high court said there had been no sexual assaults in the garage and no criminal incidents at all during the previous 10 years that would have put the owners on notice that the garage itself was unsafe.

"The record remains deficient in establishing the foreseeability of violent attacks such as the one against the plaintiff," the court said.

Justice Stanley Mosk dissented, arguing that it should be left to a jury to decide if there was strong enough evidence of property neglect in this particular case to hold the owners liable for damages.